User talk:Jpvandijk

Welcome!

Hello, Jpvandijk, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Experience editors can write you an email on Wikipedia, if your option allows it (they do not need to know your email first). It is better to edit logged on ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris for the advice. Sometimes when I come in in the morning my computer shows me still logged in, but I notice a few minutes later that I have to re-log in, not always though. I have to take better care. Jpvandijk (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have second thoughts with spaces and blank lines that do not change the end layout. These changes load the watch lists. You can create a Surge tectonics page, but use a sandbox first (Surge tectonics). A new stub should be neat, otherwise the articles for deletion crew will devour it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)User:Jpvandijk/Earth Sciences Bibliography[reply]

If ur network does not have access to mantleplumes.org. I can send u a document per email, if u need it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference list on

Timeline of the development of tectonophysics, in the Wiki Cite format ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, I'll take a look at that, it looks a bit sterile, and of course shows many overlaps with other pages. But that is the meaning of a time line, ok :) Jpvandijk (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology, history, evolution... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right, it takes time, chronology, history and evolution to sort all this out! :)Jpvandijk (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chris, I hope you don't take my comments personally, I see the timeline page is almost 99 percent your incredible work! My compliments! I would love to help. I see we are both sort of bibliophils (is that english?). Is there a way we can create a repository of documents in Wikipedia instead of referring to unstable external links or commercial editors that sell the papers? And also to create a uniformity in the lists? Do you have an idea?Jpvandijk (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource has some documents without copyright. Wiki is a open source database, it won't allow to save copyright material.--Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got your point, and I see that Wikisource actually creates an online readable copy of the work in question, a bit like Google Books.

I have been occupied with the question of geoscience databases since 1987, and I know how complicated the problem can get. I would like to suggest a simple solution.

First let me define the problem:

• I see that on many Wikipedia pages the same references occur, which creates many duplications, and dispersal of info and difficult management of the links.
• They are, furthermore, in the edible text inserted inside the text itself.

Maybe we can use the geodynamics pages as a test case to create a solution. Possibilities:

• First possibility: We could create a page which just contains the references as a list with their links, and nothing else, to which all the other pages refer. This is a quick solution, rather simple and not difficult to realise.
• Second possibility: Each reference should have its own page, with all the data and a discussion on the work itself. This is a lot of work, but it would be the best solution.

Jpvandijk (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wikipedia is not Wikitionary. The pages need lead, prose, content... We have google, google books, google scholar... Google scholar has many versions of a reference, the classics have even one university with the text online. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might suggest it to strategy.wikimedia or to Wikipedia:Village pump. The pages content stands quite alone. And you can add the Cite journal template with the doi=number and the User:Citation bot fills in everything. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are u sure with "Keith Runcorn in a paper in 1956" ??? Can't find a ref. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look it up and insert it tomorrow. The page is really accellarating! Compliments! Jpvandijk (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U worked more ;) Never mind u had the ref later on, sorry. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Now each reference is double; as a "sfn note", as a "Harv". Looks good, we can trace also the amount of time each paper is referenced." Not good... Sysops/Admins won't like it, I'm afraid. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]